Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[BicycleTree]

Matt, I suppose you would add more bike storage to the buses, eh? Remove the front couple seats, for example. Any way you cut it. People could also store their bikes at the bus stop at the other end. And remember, not everyone is going to be dropped off so far from work that they really need a bike.

The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.

 

[Moonbear]

Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?

On both buses and trains that I've been on, they didn't allow any bikes to be carried on during rush hour. The rest of the day on buses, it was the driver's discretion, so if the bus was particularly crowded, they wouldn't let you take your bike on with you. Recently, I've seen a few buses that have a bike rack on the front, but yeah, it doesn't look like it would carry more than 2 or 3 bikes either. I'm not sure how many of the professionals are going to want to bike though, especially women going to work in suits with skirts and high heels. You'd have to change clothes twice, hope your suit didn't get wrinkled in, what, a backpack?, figure out where to stash the briefcase, get your hair messed up with wind, wind up all sweaty...yeah, I don't think that's going to work for those commuting to work in a city.

 

[Moonbear]

The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.

Until that bus is stuck in the traffic jam with all the other cars and can't stay on schedule.

 

[BicycleTree]

Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)

 

[BicycleTree]

The point of buses is that the more people take buses, the fewer traffic jams you have. There aren't "all the other cars" if most commuters take the bus. 1 bus takes 50 single-occupancy cars off the road at a stroke.

 

[chroot]

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

You don't get it.

As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.

The only other option to direct buses are switched buses. You can introduce hubs on the bus lines, and make people transfer a dozen times. You've now made better use of the buses' capacity, but you've killed the speed. The buses would take 2, 3, or 4 times as long as the equivalent car ride, and no one would use the service due to the inconvenience.

Either way, your "carpet the land with buses" idea will fail. If you provide too many direct bus routes, the buses will be underutilized, and will fail economically. If you provide too few direct bus routes, the bus rides will be too lengthy, and no one will use them.

Again, as I and others have explained, the problem cannot be solved simply by throwing more buses at it. It is a very complex problem, and thousands of people have spent a lot more time than you considering solutions. The bottom line, as I've said, is that the only real solution to the transportation problem is to eliminate the need for transportation altogether. This can only be accomplished by inventing teleportation, or better city planning.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

And might I add that a great many people already do enjoy the practical advantages of bike and bus. There simply aren't enough of us.

Yes, you change your clothes when you ride a bike, and get 5 or 10 minutes of good exercise. For a woman wearing a skirt, there are these silly "women's bikes" with low top bars which weigh more and are weaker, but enable one to ride a bike with a skirt on, although the better option may be to change.

 

[BicycleTree]

As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.

Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.

Basically, you ask, where are the traffic jams? And for the most part there are two answers for commuters: in main arteries, and in cities. The main artery jam is solved through buses, and the city jam is solved through bikes.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

I don't think it's an exception, that's how it is here also. Which is probably why there is no mass transportation. They're trying buses in some of the popular parts of the county, but whenever I see one, it's empty.

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike.

Are you saying people should take their bikes on the bus?

If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

Where are these inner city bikes coming from?

The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.

Not too many people aren't going to need a car when they get to the distant city.

Taking the bus has never been practical where ever I lived, if they had buses at all. When I lived in Houston, the traffic was terrible and I would car pool, but even that meant driving 35 minutes to a location to meet the person I carpooled with for the remaining 1-2 hour drive.

In Chicago, you have trains from the suburbs into the city, those I used because you could then take the subway once you got downtown.

 

[chroot]

Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)

You know, BicycleTree, this discussion is getting on my nerves -- you keep changing the subject. You started by harping about how great bikes are in cities. I agree, they are. Public transportation makes good sense in urban environments, also. Then you started talking about turning the freeways into bus-only conduits, and continue to ignore the glaring problems with that approach.

Now you're trying to argue your point by saying that bus riders won't have to pay for personal vehicle parking -- but the only places where you have to pay to park in America are the cities, and we all already agree that cars are not best option in cities.

The problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.

This is the situation for the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who works in my area who also lives in my area.

Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.

But I don't work in a city; I work in another suburban-sprawl area.

The main artery jam is solved through buses

You can keep saying it all you like; the simple fact is that buses (even lots of them) won't solve it. People live and work in too many different combinations of places for buses to be effective.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.

The bus is better on the highway because it eliminates congestion; the bike is better in the city. Taking a car on the highway to commute with is inferior because once you get to the city, you must park it; the in-city considerations are closely tied to the to-city considerations.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.

This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

In many respects, the XBL is a victim of its own success.
Commuting by bus via the XBL has become so popular
that the lane is nearly full. With the XBL at or near capac-
ity, the operation has been subject to periodic travel
delays, affecting the reliability of commuting by bus
through the Lincoln Tunnel. To further compound con-
gestion, if a bus breaks down in the XBL there is no alter-
native but for buses to use the eastbound roadway of
Route 495. These situations completely erode the travel
advantages of the XBL for bus riders and create an acute
congestion condition for the entire corridor.

www.panynj.gov/tbt/pdf/XBL-II_nwslttr_285fri.pdf[/URL]
(hopefully the link works)

 

[BicycleTree]

I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.

 

[BicycleTree]

This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.

I think it's more than you think. I have recently started going into and out of Boston via a 3-lane highway, which even has the breakdown lane designated as available for use during rush hours, effectively making it a 4-lane highway. Thousands of single-occupancy vehicles reduce the speed on the highway to 5, 10, 15 mph for long stretches, so that it takes an hour to travel thirty miles. This is the situation I refer to, and the problem has not been solved.

 

[chroot]

Bicycle (and car) sharing programs are already in place in many major metropolitan cities.

- Warren

 

[zoobyshoe]

In China just about everyone rides bicycles. Speak any Chinese BicycleTree? You'd feel at home there.

 

[chroot]

I think it's more than you think.

Provide evidence to support your assertion.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

zooby, many people ride bicycles in the USA as well. I know of two other people on this site who ride street bikes recreationally.

 

[BicycleTree]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

 

[Evo]

I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.

The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.

I would never be able to use a bike because I have to visit clients and there is usually at least 26 miles between clients and very little time between appointments.

 

[Evo]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

A bus in this case wouldn't work, people will still need a car to get around the Boston area, which is why so many people drive there and don't take the bus.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.

- Warren

 

[LeBrad]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.

 

[Knavish]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

 

[chroot]

The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.

This is certainly a problem.

I'd also like to discuss the myth of BicycleTree's work-on-the-bus proposal. My professional work involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and measurement equipment sprawled over several benches -- obviously I cannot do any real work on the bus. Many other people have the same problem: buses don't provide enough room per passenger to actually do any serious work. Some professionals could bring a laptop and work on a presentation, perhaps, but many people find the fifty sweating bodies crammed into your personal space to be a bit of a distraction. Needless to say, unless your "work" involves reading novels, most people aren't going to get a whole lot done on a bus.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.

 

[Huckleberry]

Rush hour traffic jams are a pain. I don't see bicycles replacing cars any time soon. Maybe if gas prices go over 5 dollars a gallon people will start taking bicycles seriously.

I think a large part of the problem is that some people take a car to go 1 block to the corner store and back. Last semester I walked to school about a mile away. Almost nobody there walked. They drove the same mile and parked in a 5 story parking garage and drove the one or two miles back to their houses. It took me about the same time to walk as it did for them to drive. If I were riding a bicycle I would have been home long before them.

Banning cars from the highway so only buses can use them is pretty ridiculous. Some people need their cars. Their may be no bus route. People often do chores on their way home from work, or have to pick up their children from day care somewhere. Some people are not able to ride a bicycle or walk very far to a bus stop. I think that if people would use public transportation and walk or bike when it was convenient then there would be much less traffic.

I once bicycled 50 miles in about 2.5 hours. I hope to bicycle across Australia someday.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

I didn't ask this; the number of people living in the suburbs is not directly related to the number who actually commute to the central city each day. I am one such person -- I live in the suburbs of San Francisco, but I do not work there; I only go there for nightlife and culture. Almost everyone I know is in the same situation.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.

I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.

 

[Moonbear]

YThe problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.

The reality is that those who DO work in cities and CAN take public transportation already do that. I grew up in NJ suburbs where a large part of the population commutes to NYC for work. I don't know of anyone who had work hours compatible with taking buses or trains who didn't do so. The people who drove into the city are those who didn't have predictable hours compatible with bus routes (they might be in rush hour traffic in the morning, but then worked until 10 PM), or needed to carry a lot of files back and forth with them that were too heavy to lug around on buses. Yes, they were not the norm among commuters, but when you start adding them up, a few from this town a few from that town, that's where all those cars come from. Adding more buses isn't going to get them off the road, and in major cities, the buses themselves are creating congestion because there are so many of them.

 

[Moonbear]

I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.

Whose homes would you like to tear down to expand it?

 

[chroot]

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.

As I've said, the problem of moving many people from the suburbs to a small number of destinations in the city is already a solved problem. The metro, subway, BART, etc. already accomplish this. This is great, but only useful for a small percentage of the population.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

Two things - it says 45% of the population live in what is deemed suburbs, quite a large percent of the population live in small towns that are not considered suburbs, this means that the number of people living in the suburbs of a large city vastly outnumbers city dwellers (which supports chroot) and the statistics are 15 years old.